A Civil Discussion about the Origin of Sin

And how did he do that? Put a large rope around them all and drag them forcefully there? He lassoed them like a cowboy would a calf and dragged them by force? How did God accomplish this?
He took away the protection that he surrounded Israel with, and allowed the Assyrians to come in and take them captive. He strengthened one and weakened the other. It was not by force.

I take Scripture over your opinion any day.

Father take this cup from me, nevertheless thy will be done, not mine.
I lay my life down, I take it up again.
Put up thy sword Peter. Know ye not that I could have called 12 legions of angels from my heavenly father...

He laid aside some of his attributes like his divine omnipotence--the power to call 72,000 angels, and he went willingly to the cross. He allowed men to crucify him.
I give you Scripture. You give me opinion.

I never argued that the death, burial and resurrection of Christ was fore-ordained. He was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, as the Scripture says.
But nowhere does it say that the rape of a woman and consequent abortion was ordained before the foundation of the world. The two don't go together. You have made an illogical leap of faith.

Who is the one making the Bible say whatever he wants??

 

DHK---I agree that the Lord Jesus went willingly to the cross and that He allowed men to crucify Him

BUT

Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus "laid aside some of His attributes like His divine omnipotence"????---------when the Bible is clear that Jesus "Knew the hearts of all men"??

And Jesus certainly COULD have called those "72 Grand"---why---at the very whisper of the word those angels could and would have obeyed the very call of the Omnipotent One

The simple fact is---Jesus didn't "lay aside" anything---merely He refused to use that divine power---He was God--He could do anything He wished but chose not to use that omnipotence-----He wasn't "powerless" to rescue Himself-----merely---He refused to use that power to rescue Himself!! He had other people in mind for rescue and redemption!!!

 

The text neither says nor indicates ANYTHING about allowing.

 

No one said anything about force.

And do not bother posting anything to me anymore on this thread since you cannot but be antagonizing.

 

I trust it is only a matter of semantics brother. I used the term "laid aside" in the same way you used "merely refused to use," or "chose not to use." I didn't mean anything different than that.

 

You quoted the verse:
He brought the Assyrians.
I ask, How?
Was it by force?
Or did he create circumstances such that He allowed the Assyrians to come on their own power to overtake Israel?
It was that simple.

 

But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD. (Job 1:11-12)
The text says nothing about God being the author of sin.
God gives permission to Satan to afflict Job.
Before that Satan challenges the Lord: Take your hand of protection off of Job and he will curse you to your face. And so the Lord does, and allows Satan to afflict Job.

 

"The Lord said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."

Allow, permission, granted authority, isnt that splitting a semantic hair Luke?

 

So very true, the Omnipotent God uses the known hearts and desires of men and kingdoms to accomplish His will and desire. Making Him and even more AWESOME God.

 

Sorry Brother, that I haven't gotten things across more precise than I did. I will try to do better on this one, but what comes from the "tips o' muh fangers" is sometimes different that what is in my mind!! :laugh:

Thank you for taking the time to read my "jumbled mess"!!

I will try to address these two paragraphs in one lump!! The "groundwork" I was trying to lay(and also show), was that sin originated solely in/by Lucifer. I believe that he acted of his own accord, without any influence from God whatsoever. What is in heaven that would make someone start sinning to begin with??? I believe that Lucifer was either jealous of Jesus being God's only Begotten, or that he wanted to be higher than God Himself. Either way, pride was the sin that I think brought about Lucifer's fall.

Here are some scriptures to support "pride":

Prov. 16:5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

Prov. 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Now, from that time until he beguiled Eve in the Garden would be purely conjecture, IMHO. Man is responsible for giving in to the thoughts(or temptations) that the devil brings to their(our) minds. He is what brings about the bad thoughts, but we are responsible for the choices we make, whether they be right or not. Does this address these questions better, Brother? If you need more clarification, just let me know!! :thumbs:

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

"Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good? Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins? (KJV)

The word "commandeth" in vs. 37 specifically refers to the word "punishment" in vs. 39. Thus what God is commanding is His "punishment" not the thoughts and intents of mans souls. The entire chapter that surrounds (context) 37-38 is about God's authority to bring judgement on an unrepentant people.

 

We agree with this.

But what you yield in agreeing with this Calvinistic position is that God wills for evil to come to pass.

 

No, it is not. Permission is most certainly there. But it is only part of a whole.

God gave Satan permission to afflict Job.

But God is the one who is the ultimate cause of Job's affliction.

Scripture is clear here: Job said, "The LORD hath taken away" and Scripture testifies "Job did not charge God foolishly".

None can do ANYTHING without God's permission. You and I cannot BREATHE without his permission. But permission does not fully encapsulate the truth taught in this text and many, many others.

 

The ball rolling analogy and what I am saying are not similar.

God is, Edwards says, "the permitter . . . of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted . . . will most certainly and infallibly follow."

That is what I am saying. He is the permitter and disposer of events so that sin will most certainly follow.

Not for sin itself but for the greater good that he will be able to bring about by this sin and it's ultimate eradication.

I think I answer this above. If not to your satisfaction, let me know and I will further elaborate.

I have them. I used them vociferously when I myself was an Arminian.

It IS compatabalism, nonetheless.

Would you consider yourself to be a classical Arminian?

Excellent

God allowing or permitting is not in the text except that if ANYTHING is to happen God must allow it and permit it. No. What is in the text is God decreeing it, ordaining it.

 

doublepost

 

Yes, but the punishment that God decreed by way of prophecy that should come upon them is the evil deeds by way of the evil hearts of Jerusalem's enemies.

Those enemies would mean it for evil but God would mean it for good.

This is the SAME with every evil deed including the fall that God decreed.

God would mean it and use it and cause it for the ultimate eternal good whereas the evil doers would have evil in and of itself as their motive.

 

I have to say that your lack of respect for the scripture and your sloppy handling of it here is staggering.

You are missing, perhaps purposefully, the inspired words of the "narrator." Certainly God gives Satan permission, certainly God removes His hand of protection from Job, and certainly Satan afflicts Job.

But, again Job's words in both these cases are instructive: The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord and Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?

Now, you are correct, these are Job's words. But this is not merely "Job's perception" which may or may not be flawed. Job's perception is accurate--it is God (ultimately) who is responsible for these afflictions. The inspired narrator says (in both cases after Job states his perception): In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong and In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

Job clearly says that God is responsible. The narrator clearly states that Job is right. The narrator, further, goes on to say that Job did not sin or charge God with wrong by saying that God is the cause of this.

Your handling of this text is hopelessly flawed because you are not taking the text--all the text--into consideration.

I never said God created evil. I never said He created evil for job. I never attribute evil to God.

Now be careful here Mr. Moderator. You are engaging in "smear" tactics that are absolutely unbecoming of a moderator--but then again you usually only moderate the Calvinists and let the non-Calvinists run wild.

All I have said is that Job attributes the various calamities he has experienced to God and the inspired narrator has confirmed Job's words. Therefore, God is ultimately responsible for what has befallen Job.

This is laughable--in one sentence you state "Nothing good comes from a terrorist" and then, later, you quote scripture saying "All things work together for them that love him, for them that are called according to his purpose" (especially because as you've already stated in other places, wrongly I might add, "all means all").

This is a clear contradiction and you simply cannot have this both ways. If "all" things work together for good (as you seem to affirm), then it must be the case that evil is one of the "all things" that works together for good--including the attacks on NYC.

You are clearly denying the principle that we find in Genesis 50--that even the free and sinful actions of human beings ultimately serve God's greater purposes.

Also, again, it is very infantile for you, as a moderator, to even suggest that I was even remotely in favor of the terrorist attacks. I think you are beginning to level false charges against be because you are coming to the end of the well in this discussion and you are resorting to insults and false accusations and directing them at me, rather than dealing with the texts presented in a truly exegetical fashion. Again, something we'd expect from some other members here, but certainly not from a moderator.

You have a hopelessly wrong idea of the difference between fatalism and the Calvinist position. The greatest thing that absolutely disproves that we, Calvinists, are fatalists is that we pray. A true fatalist would never pray--and Calvinists are known for prayer. We do, in fact, pray for people to be healed from sickness, for very hardened persons to come to Christ, for people (and individuals) in general to come to Christ. So, the charge that we are fatalists is patently false.

A further difference in fatalism and Calvinism, as I've explained elsewhere, is that fatalism is generally based on an impersonal force--"fate." We do not hold God to be impersonal. We believe that God ordains both the means and the end so that when we pray for the salvation of "Fred," God has ordained that we pray for Fred so that He can answer that prayer bringing Fred to Christ.

So, again, as a moderator, you need to be careful with your false accusations that you bring to the discussion over and over and over again--especially because it has been explained to you that it is a false accusation on our part. But, like a one-trick-pony, it seems it is all you can think of to say in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So much for the "civil discussion." Who would have thought that it'd be a moderator who is leveling false accusations and ad hominem arguments. Very unfortunate.

The Archangel

 

The Archangel, I thought this was supposed to be a civil thread? You cannot accuse someone of a smear tactic when you start off by saying "I have to say that your lack of respect for the scripture and your sloppy handling of it here is staggering". While DHK did seem to instigate with some of his phrases, you also poured gasoline on the fire with your last post. Infantile, one trick pony, false accusations are equally uncalled for.

 

Really?!

You state "DHK did seem to instigate." Now, the last time I checked, instigate meant to "initiate."

So, why are you accusing me of breaking the civility when you claim that DHK instigated? Should not your accusation be leveled at him?

Further you assume that the statement about the sloppy handling of scripture is a false accusation. As I pointed out, the "narrator's" words were clearly missed or discounted. Therefore, it is an observation, not a false accusation.

It would seem that you are the leader of the "Anti-Archangel" club in that you only seem to see presupposed errors, lack of civility, etc. on my part whilst not addressing the very person or persons you admit are the "instigators."

Your observation is as inaccurate as it is unfair. That you would break into an otherwise civil discussion to accuse me of something that you clearly state I did not instigate is interesting. It shows upon which side your bread is buttered.

The Archangel